VanHemert Requests New Trial

Luke VanHemert (file photo)

Oskaloosa, Iowa – Attorney for Luke VanHemert is asking the court to set aside the conviction of VanHemert of 2nd Degree Murder, and to have a new trial.

VanHemert was found guilty of 2nd Degree Murder on April 15, 2019 by a Mahaska County jury.

In the motion,the attorney states;

4. The jury’s verdict is contrary to the law and the weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented:

a. In addition to arguments made during his motion for judgment of acquittal,
the Defendant asserts that it is apparent that he was acting in self-defense of himself and of his father and that the state did not meet its heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Both Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Allen indicated that Stanley Vanhemert was walking towards his home when Mr. Todd began walking up behind him saying “where do you think you’re going.” The Defendant, exercising reasonable force at that time, chose to try and tackle Mr. Todd. His attempt to tackle Mr. Todd was ultimately unsuccessful and Mr. Todd then held the Defendant down on the ground and continuously struck him. This beating lasted long enough for both Mr. Allen and Mr. Donaldson to check on Mr. Todd on separate occasions, each determining that he was “holding his own.” The Defendant did not exercise deadly force until he feared for his life and felt as if he had no other option.

b. Mr. Todd chose to travel with Mr. Donaldson on his own volition. He had not previously encountered the Defendant or anyone else at the Vanhemert residence. Once there, Mr. Todd and his friends were told on numerous occasions, and with no uncertainty, that they needed to leave the property. When they didn’t, they were told the dogs would be let loose. They were then told that law enforcement would be called. None of this deterred Mr. Todd and his friends.

c. It’s apparent that the Defendant did not bring this altercation upon himself. Not only were each member Of the VanHemert party on their own property but they had attempted to diffuse the situation to the best of their abilities. They were without success. but it was no fault of their own. All of the Defendant’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances, and the weight Of the evidence presented clearly favors that he was acting under self-defense and that his actions were justified.

5. In speaking with several of the jurors, it is apparent that there was confusion with regard to the instruction on “Malice Aforethought” and that certain facts may have been improperly considered when reaching their verdict:

a. Defense counsel was able to speak with nine of the jurors who participated in deliberation. At least four of those jurors indicated that they considered the Defendant’s actions and what he had said in the moments leading up to the fight when determining whether malice aforethought existed. Specifically, these jurors considered the two incidents with Mr. Donaldson prior to the third incident where Mr. Todd was present. These jury members believed that statements Defendant made, along with his grabbing of a brick, showed that he thought ahead and therefore acted with malice aforethought. These jurors spent most of their time deliberating grappling over whether this was a “heat of passion” situation as it relates to provocation in the lesser- included offense of voluntary manslaughter, or “malice aforethought” and therefore Murder 2nd. Ultimately, it was the facts associated with the first two incidents that them to their conclusion.

b. It has always been the defense’s position that the two incidents that the Defendant had with Mr. Donaldson had no bearing on whether the Defendant was acting in self-defense at the time of the altercation with Mr. Todd. Mr. Todd was not present when Mr. Donaldson’s car first made contact with the Defendant’s. Mr. Todd was also not present the second time when Mr. Donaldson returned and the Defendant threw a brick at his car. Mr. Todd was picked up by Mr. Donaldson after each of these incidents and at least 5 to 10 minutes had interceded these events.

6. The jury’s apparent confusion regarding the •Malice Aforethought” instruction was anticipated by the Defense, and the basis for Paragraph 8 of the Defendant’s Motion in Limine. At the time of hearing for pretrial motions, the Court reserved ruling on Defendant’s Paragraph 8, and ultimately never did enter a ruling. It is the Defendant’s position that by the Court ultimately not ruling on this important and substantive issue, the jury failed to recognize that there was a •break in the action,” and that they therefore used all of the circumstances that took place on
the night in question in determining that the Defendant acted with malice aforethought erroneously, and to the prejudice of the Defendant.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein. Defendant, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial and Motion in Arrest of Judgment because the weight and sufficiency of the evidence did not support the jury’s finding and/or because the jury improperly considered the evidence in reaching its verdict.

Respectfully submitted,
Allen L Cook Ill
Chief Local Public Defender, Ottumwa

In a letter sent to Judge Lucy Gamon before the official request for a new trial, VanHemert outlined many of the same points stated by his attorney.

In the letter, VanHemert said, he says the jury came to the verdict, “from what they were told or saw, not from the evidence.”

VanHemert goes on to say, “These three men took the law into there own hands and came looking for me they were told to leave and stay off our property. I understand a man lost his life that night. That is something I will live with forever I feel very bad that he is not with us today. With that being said it was a fatal accident in no way was I trying to take his life I was only defending myself and my loved ones which we the people have the right to do.”

In his letter, VanHemert asks Judge Lucy Gamon for a new trial and a change of venue.”

The State of Iowa filed a resistance to Cook’s arguments stating;

Verdict Not Contrary To Evidence or Law

In this case there was ample evidence to support each and every element of the crime and to prove that Defendant acted without justification. There was no dispute that he stabbed the victim with a knife, causing the victim to die. There was plentiful evidence that he first provoked the incident by assaulting the victim’s friend and then throwing a brick through his windshield. There was evidence that Donaldson advised Defendant that he would be back with friends. Instead of calling police, there was evidence that Defendant consciously elected to “handle it” himself and to “ready up,” which the jury could reasonable have inferred to mean by arming himself with a knife, and to empty the house of drugs and paraphernalia which he feared the police would find after he “handled it.” When Donaldson did return with the victim and another friend, Defendant waited, armed and unseen in the dark. Without any provocation by the victim other than asking the Defendant’s father where he was going (the father having just threatened to set loose the family pit bull), Defendant sprang on the victim from darkness and stabbed him three times to death. The jury reasonably could and did reject the Defendant’s version of events, as partially recited in the motion.

Juror “Confusion”

The defendant next seeks a new trial on the basis of juror confusion as to the meaning of the Court’s malice instruction. This is not a ground upon which a new trial can be granted. Juror thought processes leading to the verdict may not be inquired into or received in support of the motion. I.R.Evid. 5.606(b)(1) provides:

Prohibited testimony or other evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything upon that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.

The Defendant does not allege jury misconduct by having received or considered any evidence, paper or document out of court not authorized by the Court. Instead, this portion of Defendant’s arguments rests solely on incompetent and inadmissible alleged statements of jurors of their thought processes and understanding of the facts and the law. As a matter of law, they cannot form the basis for granting a motion for new trial.

Paragraph 8 of Defendant’s Motion in Limine

Paragraph 6 of Defendant’s motion for new trial conjoins the Court’s alleged failure to rule on paragraph 8 of the Defendant’s motion in limine with the jury’s alleged confusion about malice aforethought. Essentially, the State believes that Defendant is arguing that the Court should not have allowed evidence of the events leading up to the Defendant stabbing and killing the victim, at least as those events related to the Defendant’s malice aforethought. Without considering whether the jury was confused by the evidence (see the Jury Confusion section above), or whether the Defendant raised the issue in a timely fashion by objecting, the Court properly admitted this evidence. Defendant’s actions leading up to the stabbing were clearly related and relevant to
Defendant’s state of mind at the time he stabbed the victim as well as to the issue of justification.

WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests that the Defendant’s motion be overruled and denied.

Judge Gamon will rule on the motion after hearing oral arguments from both sides at VanHemerts sentencing.